Should children be subject to new TSA screening procedures?

[thaiboxerken]

Well said. I agree completely with what you say here, and how you say it.

So would Benjamin Franklin…

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.​

and you opposed the Patriot Act s well, right?

 

[zaphod2016]

Then don't fly.

Just a quick aside, this same reasoning was used regarding blacks opposed to the various segregation practices of the deep south prior to the Civil Rights movement.

"Don't like the black-only water fountains? Don't use 'em"

Not only is this complete disingenuous intellectually, opponents to this logic have already been completely vindicated by history.

EDIT: And, for the record, I don't fly, because I refuse to let people trample on my civil rights. I will happily enjoy an 18 hour drive instead, spending my time reaffirming my hatred of the Federal Government vis-a-vis the miracle of AM radio.

 

[applecorped]

Comparing civil rights issues to the fear of terrorism on airlines, and the resluting security measures taken, is disingenuous intellectually. You're comparing what the US government did to its own citizens to what terrorists are doing to civilians? I don't blame the airlines for what they have to consider doing to protect people and stay in business, I blame the terrorists for putting them in that position. If you don't like the steps the airlines are trying in order to protect you then don't fly if it offends you that much.

 

[zaphod2016]

Comparing civil rights issues to the fear of terrorism on airlines, and the resluting security measures taken, is disingenuous intellectually.

I disagree.

You're comparing what the US government did to its own citizens to what terrorists are doing to civilians?

No, I am comparing what certain state governments (e.g. Arkansas) did to its own citizens circa 1950 to what the Federal government (e.g. TSA) is doing to its own citizens circa 2010. Namely: violating certain inalienable, constitutional rights; specifically the rights to due process and right to freely travel between states.

Pray tell- going by your "just don't fly" solution, how, exactly, am I supposed to exercise my constitutional right to travel to Hawaii? Ship? And what happens when we place the TSA on cruises too? Will I then be expected to take a canoe? I can't swim that far!

I don't blame the airlines for what they have to consider doing to protect people and stay in business, I blame the terrorists for putting them in that position.

The terrorists did not create the TSA. The terrorists cannot pass Federal law. The terrorists own no airports, and offer service on no airlines. The terrorists of 2010, just like the terrorists of 1970, are a violent insect, seeking only to cause chaos and disrupt the sanctity of democratic-republic governments such as ours.

And every single time we forfeit our liberties to appease our fear of the terrorists, they are achieving their explicit purpose- political change vis-a-vis intimidation.

Want to fight terrorism? Stop allowing them to influence our political decisions- because this is exactly what they are trying to do!

I don't fault you for being afraid, I'm afraid too. These are scary times. But let me also say, we had hijackers back in the 80's too. And although it is true none of them had intentionally flown into an office building yet, I'm pretty sure, from the perspective of the passengers on those hijacked planes, that didn't matter much. Dead is dead; and I honor the sacrifice of those dead every time I say to the enemy: I am not afraid of you.

Never forget. And never forget that no amount of "security" will bring those victims back. No amount of "security" can bring justice to an event like 9/11. Nothing could bring justice to an act so unjust.

If you don't like the steps the airlines are trying in order to protect you then don't fly if it offends you that much.

I realize you don't think much of my opinion on this matter, but rest assured: if we are still living in a free world 100 years from now, your progeny will praise the people like me, and hope they are in heaven. And, if we are not still living in a free world 100 years from now, my progeny will curse the people like you, and hope they are in hell.

 

[applecorped]

I disagree.





And, if we are not still living in a free world 100 years from now, my progeny will curse the people like you, and hope they are in hell.

Your progeny will not do well by cursing people and wishing them in hell.

 

[kerikiwi]

I disagree.



No, I am comparing what certain state governments (e.g. Arkansas) did to its own citizens circa 1950 to what the Federal government (e.g. TSA) is doing to its own citizens circa 2010. Namely: violating certain inalienable, constitutional rights; specifically the rights to due process and right to freely travel between states.

Pray tell- going by your "just don't fly" solution, how, exactly, am I supposed to exercise my constitutional right to travel to Hawaii? Ship? And what happens when we place the TSA on cruises too? Will I then be expected to take a canoe? I can't swim that far!



The terrorists did not create the TSA. The terrorists cannot pass Federal law. The terrorists own no airports, and offer service on no airlines. The terrorists of 2010, just like the terrorists of 1970, are a violent insect, seeking only to cause chaos and disrupt the sanctity of democratic-republic governments such as ours.

And every single time we forfeit our liberties to appease our fear of the terrorists, they are achieving their explicit purpose- political change vis-a-vis intimidation.

Want to fight terrorism? Stop allowing them to influence our political decisions- because this is exactly what they are trying to do!

I don't fault you for being afraid, I'm afraid too. These are scary times. But let me also say, we had hijackers back in the 80's too. And although it is true none of them had intentionally flown into an office building yet, I'm pretty sure, from the perspective of the passengers on those hijacked planes, that didn't matter much. Dead is dead; and I honor the sacrifice of those dead every time I say to the enemy: I am not afraid of you.

Never forget. And never forget that no amount of "security" will bring those victims back. No amount of "security" can bring justice to an event like 9/11. Nothing could bring justice to an act so unjust.



I realize you don't think much of my opinion on this matter, but rest assured: if we are still living in a free world 100 years from now, your progeny will praise the people like me, and hope they are in heaven. And, if we are not still living in a free world 100 years from now, my progeny will curse the people like you, and hope they are in hell.

The only question is how much security do you accept before you feel your constitutional rights are infringed?

 

[Arus808]

more over reaction for a scanner that doesn't do anything of the sort.

And yes children should go through metal detectors/scanners like every other person,

shoe bomber? what prevents someone from using the diaper bag, or the babies diaper to hide something?

Yes people can be that callous.


And btw, you CAN OPT out of the full body scanner and go for the normal metal detector scanner or a pat down if you like.


over reaction is just silly.

 

[Infoexcavator]

If you don't like the steps the airlines are trying in order to protect you then don't fly if it offends you that much.

This would be a good argument in a world where there is no TSA and private airline companies decided the amount of security based on what they think the customers want. In the real world the aggressive patdowns and not being able to travel freely without them is against the constitution.

 

[applecorped]

This would be a good argument in a world where there is no TSA and private airline companies decided the amount of security based on what they think the customers want. In the real world the aggressive patdowns and not being able to travel freely without them is against the constitution.

It is? Evidence?

 

[WildCat]

And btw, you CAN OPT out of the full body scanner and go for the normal metal detector scanner or a pat down if you like.

You must have missed the new rule. Refuse the scanner, and you don't just get a metal detector want and/or a pat-down, they are actually going to feel your genital area with their hands.

 

[Almo]

Then don't fly.

This whole attitude stems from this idea that it is the fault of the security agencies when terrorist attacks happen. It is the terrorists who kill people, not the security people letting them through (except in the case of obvious negligence).

At some point, we give up too much in the interest of attempting to reduce risk to zero. In my opinion, we have crossed that point.

 

[kerikiwi]

At some point, we give up too much in the interest of attempting to reduce risk to zero. In my opinion, we have crossed that point.

What was that point? If we have crossed it, you will be able to identify it.
And where would that point be if you were on the plane which was destroyed?

 

[WildCat]

What was that point? If we have crossed it, you will be able to identify it.
And where would that point be if you were on the plane which was destroyed?

Is there no point you feel is too far?

If a terrorist smuggled a bomb on a plane in his anal cavity, or in her vagina, would you then say it's ok to undergo a body cavity search every time you board a plane?

There comes a point where you just have to accept a minimal risk, rather than no risk at all, because the latter is unattainable in real life.

 

[kerikiwi]

Is there no point you feel is too far?

If a terrorist smuggled a bomb on a plane in his anal cavity, or in her vagina, would you then say it's ok to undergo a body cavity search every time you board a plane?

There comes a point where you just have to accept a minimal risk, rather than no risk at all, because the latter is unattainable in real life.

I agree. I was asking the same question: how far is too far?

 

[Region Rat]

You must have missed the new rule. Refuse the scanner, and you don't just get a metal detector want and/or a pat-down, they are actually going to feel your genital area with their hands.

Now you tell me.

I just flew out of Vegas last week and was picked out to go through the scanner. First time, so I didn't know what it was until it spun around me. By then it was too late. They didn't give me an option or explain anything. just said stand on the footprints, hold my arms up and don't move.

Can't say it bothered me, though. All I heard were oooooh's and aaaaaah's.

 

[zaphod2016]

Can't say it bothered me, though. All I heard were oooooh's and aaaaaah's.

And here I was, getting all bent out of shape about a silly little thing like my privacy. Imagine that, my fellow skeptics (all of whom, I might point out, are currently writing from behind fictitious pseudonyms).

I would like someone to address the issue raised by WildCat. Assuming nude scanning and a quick rub down are kosher, what about cavity searches?

Ignore the logistical issues for a moment, and answer a morbid question- would you bend over? Or would that be the point at which you join my righteous crusade against "the man"?

Just curious.

 

[zaphod2016]

I agree. I was asking the same question: how far is too far?

For me- this is it. This is where I opt-out, and resign myself to a life of road trips. Hawaii was nice, but not nice enough to subject myself to this madness any longer.

Will I still fly in the case of emergency? Probably. If in a situation where I must be somewhere within a few hours, yeah, as much as it pains me to admit it, yeah, probably.

But leisure travel? Any travel which I have some time to plan for? Road trips suit me just fine. I like cruises too. I used to like flying when I was younger, but after some scary flights, I really don't mind sticking to Earth anyway. At least, until I can go somewhere better than Newark, say, the moon for example. I bet we'll have hi-def nude scanners by then.

But enough of my babbling- I've answered the question, now your turn.

 

[Infoexcavator]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...lines-pilots-in-revolt-against-the-tsa/65746/

The leader of the largest pilot union in the world is urging the members to refuse body scanners and demand patdowns to be only done in a private room.

Do the TSA think the pilots are carrying drugs, it can't be weapons because the pilot does not need any weapons to destroy a plane...

 

[Ladewig]

Well said. I agree completely with what you say here, and how you say it.

So would Benjamin Franklin…

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.​

One of the things I love abut America is that it provides liberty and safety to people whether they deserve it or not. So the quote is irrelevant.

 

[nchammer326]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/10...-body-scan-says-tsa-doesnt-make-travel-safer/

Anyone see how stupid this is, are they afraid that the pilot will bring a bomb or a gun to an airplane? He is the pilot, he could just fly the plane into the ground while the copilot goes to the toilet!

How do they know he's actually a pilot?

You must have missed the new rule. Refuse the scanner, and you don't just get a metal detector want and/or a pat-down, they are actually going to feel your genital area with their hands.

Source?